Innocent

[chickenhead]

Just finished reading The Innocent Man, about two guys that got railroaded on murder charges, on got the death penalty the other got life, both spend 14 years in prison, one comes within just a few days of getting executed...all with basically zero evidence against them. It was not a fair trial.

Then I read last night about a guy in Texas, who actually was put to death, that based on further review actually had no evidence against him. His house caught fire, he and his three children inside sleeping...he made it out, his kids didn't. They decided arson. The scariest thing about his trial, is that it appeared relatively fair. The expert witness was just wrong, which was the entire case.

After he was put to death, under further review, their was no evidence of arson whatsoever -- it was incorrect testimony. Just the thought of being wrongly accused of killing your own children would be horrific, then convicted, then spent years in prison, and then be executed for it. It's too horrific to even imagine.

It was interesting to me that both cases had exactly two things in common -- jailhouse snitches, and incorrect expert testimony. In both of these cases the entire case was basically jailhouse snitches and expert testimony. All 3 men were indigent, none could afford their own expert witness to rebut the prosecutions expert witness (who was wrong in each case).

Not sure what the answer is, but there is a problem when it comes to jailhouse snitch testimony, and how expert technical witnesses operate. And this only strengthens my long held believe that JURY DUTY is our most important civic duty -- and one not to be shirked by able minded folks.

[The Judge]

No prosecutor would use jailhouse snitches if they had real evidence. The jailhouse snitch always says something about the killing that "only the killer could know" it was never released by the police. So how did the jailhouse snitch know this unless the person on trial told him? Well the answer is the police told him.

In San Francisco they played a little game that all the cons and the police knew, the jailhouse snitch would call from the jail (jail noise an all in the background) and say he was a police officer from another city and the were investigating a murder in there county and wanted to know if they were related. The detective knew that this was the jailhouse snitch calling and he would fed him the information they wanted on the stand. Now days they just sit them down and tell them how to testify.

If you see a jailhouse snitch called to testify its a weak case. The phone calls from jail now have an automated voice that say the call originated from jail so the practice has die out some but thanks to cell phones and so prison privileges it still goes on.

As for as the experts go if you don't have your own you are dead in the water. There experts will being into evidence non-science and swear that its the truth.

[ArlJim78]

that is scary. apparently there are many holes in our system. I think the part about the people being indigent is a key point. there is probably a bias amongst people to believe that they are guilty.

would it be better to have professional jurors? people from various backgrounds who are trained what to look for and have proven ability to be fair and logical. just asking. it is just unthinkable to lock someone away or put them to death on crappy evidence like they used on this guy.

[The Judge]

that recognizes the problem with some suggestions as how to lessen the negative effects. Its better than nothing.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Death_penalty_reform/Jailhouse%20snitch%20testimony%20policy%20brief.pd f

[chickenhead]

that is scary. apparently there are many holes in our system. I think the part about the people being indigent is a key point. there is probably a bias amongst people to believe that they are guilty.

There's always other stuff that gets brought up too...the guy with the fire, they had an expert witness testify that since the guy had a Quiet Riot and a Led Zeppelin poster in is laundry room, and since the Quiet Riot poster had a skull with a fist punching through it, that the guy was a sociopath. Pretty scray stuff -- thankfully the guy who said that was years later booted from the profession for various other ridiculous testimony...but it's scary that stuff like that makes it into a courtroom under the guise of expert testimony.


would it be better to have professional jurors? people from various backgrounds who are trained what to look for and have proven ability to be fair and logical. just asking. it is just unthinkable to lock someone away or put them to death on crappy evidence like they used on this guy.

The scariest part to me was thinking about the cases, as they were presented, I'm not sure I would have thought any of them were not guilty. The way the expert testimony was presented was as if it was fact beyond doubt -- and without anything presented to rebut it, that's pretty damning stuff.

In the first guys trial it was hair evidence -- the expert said the hairs were "a match" for the guys on trial, and not a match for any of the other suspects, DNA later proved it did not come from the men in question, but from one of the other suspects. In the second the arson investigator presented 20 distinct reasons why it was arson -- none of which held up under scutiny -- they were all distinctly things that can and do happen in a normal fire. The arson investigators privately never understood why the did not find any traces of accelarant as they would expect.

[Greyfox]

Frightening. There are many cases where the Prosecution makes "deals" with individuals to turn "States Evidence."
The payoff to the "rat" is either a reduced sentence or perhaps no charge at all.
Essentially the Prosecution is "bribing" witnesses while successfully convicting someone who perhaps shouldn't even be prosecuted in the first place.
Jurors should look askant at such witnesses. Unfortunately they don't. The majority of people charged with major crimes are convicted, rightly or wrongly. They are presumed "Guilty until proven innocent." which is exactly bass ackwards.

[ddog]

they don't have that rag over the eyes of the justice lady for the reason you all think!

The facts are not that.

There have been many people punished to further the career of well-meaning or not so well meaning prosecutors.

You think it's easy to have the "public" at your door everyday demanding justice and that SOMEONE pay?

You want to believe, many have to believe that the guilty alone are punished and quickly put to death.

The "justice system" in this country, while well meaning is a politically corrupted joke.

[OTM Al]

It is why, even though some probably deserve it, I cannot support a death penalty. You can't take it back when you are wrong and the law should be employed equally to all, so there should not be shades of really guilty versus seems guilty. Lucky for 2 of these guys they didn't die, but then again, their lives are pretty much shot. Other guy doesn't even have that.

[robert99]

Pages of cases listed here:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

[lsbets]

That's the reason I am against the death penalty - the worst thing the state can do is take the life of an innocent man.

[cj's dad]

Check out the case of Keith Bloodworth in Maryland - he would have been executed except for a DNA test- this is why I oppose the death penalty !!!

[Tom]

In some cases, guilt is not in doubt. Use the DP sparingly, but use it when it is called for.

Why should taxpayers pay to keep garbage alive for decades? Once in jail, the prisoners should be forced to pay their way, by cash or work - slavery, if you will. No TV, no AC, no gyms, no nothing but work pay back to us.